goonys evil twin

Appearently. And with the monumental loss of Tank Johnson our team will simply fall to pieces, unable to even imagine winning a playoff game. Don't forget RMJ and Hester will be their starting corners in the playoffs will certainly help make the team fall to pieces. It's ok, I like that the team will be playing with a chip on their shoulder. The Bears wish they lost 4 more games this year, that would mean they'd be on a relative hot streak by winning late in the season, and proving themselves against other near .500 teams. At 12-2, their record in the past 7 games is just 5-2, worse than their overall record. If they were, let's say, 8-6, and won 4 of their last 7, that would mean they would be on a hot streak, compared to their first 7 games, when they were just 4 of 7. Winning 3 in a row is not impressive when you've won 7 in a row already this season. 3 in a row would be really good though if you had lost 3 in a row at one point as well.

I think you're wrong. I remember who wore those numbers, but I have to think about it for some. And I've followed the Cubs more closely over the past 25 years than most Cubs fans. The number isn't nearly as important as the name. I think the uproar is silly.

Only the slowest of the slow non-SB threats don't bring a 1B in to hold him. I agree there might be some value in keeping the threat alive, which is why it's probably smartest to be middle of the pack in SB attempts. What you don't want is to be leader of the pack, standing out against the rest, because that means you are giving up more outs than the rest (kind of like Florida before they canned Torberg). You don't want to be the team with the most sacrifices, or the most SB/attempts. It's like the situation with the Cubs and walks. People are begging them to take more walks and give up fewer, not necessarily lead the league in either department. Just stop letting the walk be a primary reason why you are not winning. I don't know the answer to the second part, but I don't think that happens all that often anyway. I mean, we see it when it does, because it's so glaring, but that's the case with many things.

Hey now, Ward is not a good player. He's a decent bench option, and that's it.

Wow, how noble of him to have not fired back. It's not that tough. "Hey, this situation has caused a heap of trouble, I can't hang with you right now. Let's wait for things to cool off, and we'll get in touch in the offseason." It's actually quite simple. These aren't 12 year olds that need their bestest buddy by their sides at all times. A grown man can say see you later quite easily. People say bye to great friends all the time, whether it's going away to a distant college or moving for a new job. Any reasonable human being has no problem saying "I'll see you in the future". I'm not interested in getting rid of Tank. But all this "poor Tank should be allowed one last night with his gangbangin' felonious friend" talk is nonsense. Tank made his bed. He brought the trouble into his life. I pity him for losing a friend this way, but it's hardly shocking when a guy like that goes down to gun violence. Tank had a perfect opportunity to avoid the situation. But he chose to go against his already very forgiving employers wishes. He didn't deserve to have a friend killed, and he doesn't necessarily deserve to lose his job (although that could end up making him more money in the end, if some other teams steps up and pays for his services via free agency). But he chose to make the wrong decisions that could have ramifications.

It's possible, but I have my doubts. Certainly Jerry has the right to tell a player in Tank's position what not to do when he leaves the facilities. But I really doubt whether they have any authority to actually enforce such rules. It would be insubordination, but, it's probably completely legal (if not justified) insubordination. But I'm sure there's a clause in his contract for something like that. Contracts can be voided for injuries from other sports played in the players free time. Or motorcycle riding, that kind of thing. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know all the legalities of it, but I imagine that's the kind of thing they're finding out if they can do. Those injuries void contracts because they affect the player's ability to physically do his job. Going out clubbing, even if it's with a known felon, probably does not fall into that same category.

There's nothing wrong with going out. But it is insubordination if your employer explicitly tells you to not do something, yet you do it anyway. Is that insubordination a fireable offense under the terms of the CBA? We don't know. But it's still insubordination. I think we're speculating that the Bears actually TOLD Tank "do not go clubbing." How do we know that? I haven't heard Lovie, or Angelo, specifically say that he should not go out or do anything. And anyway----you gave the guy the weekend off. What's he supposed to do? Coup himself up at home like a prisoner? Does an employer really have the right, after telling someone they aren't working, that they must also do nothing but sit around? This whole thing is wacky. I know Tank is a problem, but I don't see how the Bears could have made all these specific prohibitions during one meeting Thursday. Or even that they really have the right to do that. I don't think it has anything to do with clubbing, I think it's specifically hanging out with a felon that pissed them off. We don't know if they said that, but every indication is that they were adament about him disassociating himself with known felons. Hanging out with felons simply increases your chances of getting in trouble. That's why people on parole are told to stay away from other felons. It's not about the Bears telling him to lock himself in his home alone, and really, making claims like that just weakens the pro-Tank argument. It's about the Bears protecting their own assets and interests in trying to prevent a repeat offender from repeating his offenses once again. I believe the Bears have every right to try and influence how Tank handles himself outside of Halas Hall. I do not think they have the legal authority to enforce any of these rules, however, and I don't believe it will do the team any good to get rid of him at this point.

I really have no interest in retiring numbers, or putting numbers out of circulation. There are only 100 possible uniform numbers in use, 101 if you count 0 and 00 seperately, you have 25 man active rosters, 40 man rosters that can mean as many as 15 callups during the year, and about 7 or 8 coaches with numbers. That's nearly 50 numbers that have to be available during the year, not counting trades, or guys who are added to the roster midseason. Given how rare, and stupid looking, numbers over 60 are, that leaves very little room for retired numbers. Teams like the Yankees have retired almost all the single digits, and many other double digit unis. I think it's become a silly empty gesture. I don't see what the commotion is about with the supposed need to honor these past players. Guys who accomplished truly remarkable feats, like Jackie Robinson, merit the honor, but the rest were just good baseball players. They aren't being dishonored by having somebody else wear a Cubs jersey with the same number they wore. I don't care what number any current Cubs player wears. Just put it on, and stick with it for ease of identification. We glorify athletes enough without making a fuss over who can wear their numbers once they retire.

It's possible, but I have my doubts. Certainly Jerry has the right to tell a player in Tank's position what not to do when he leaves the facilities. But I really doubt whether they have any authority to actually enforce such rules. It would be insubordination, but, it's probably completely legal (if not justified) insubordination.

I honestly had not been the least bit impressed with Tank's play all year long. He's been disappointing. Yet this is coming from somebody who wants to see him stay on the team.

There's nothing wrong with going out. But it is insubordination if your employer explicitly tells you to not do something, yet you do it anyway. Is that insubordination a fireable offense under the terms of the CBA? We don't know. But it's still insubordination.

Went in leading by 1, got 14 out of Wayne, 3 out of Johnson, and -1 out of Cincy's D. Harrison put up 26. So it didn't matter.

I'm your huckleberry.

Maybe the Bears will suspend him for the insubordination since they can't for the legal matters? Maybe they are trying to see what the likelihood is of him being able to play in the playoffs before making a decision. If they feel there is a strong chance he'll be in jail before the first game, then there's no benefit to keeping him around this year. (but I still think there is a longterm benefit)

I could be wrong, but I believe the refs make a signal when it's been touched, and that is what caused him to go after the ball. It's like a free play after the D-line goes offside. They likely throw the flag, but usually he wouldn't be able to see that. At least not when things are still going on. If you go after the ball when it's not moving, it likely means that there are opposing players around it and you're not going to be able to do anything with it. And usually if it's not moving, someone has already touched it. But there's still no real point to do anything. Even if you do get a handle of the ball, they're just going to shove you backwards and take you down. But I still don't underestimate the ability of some officials to screw things up. If the kick team is sleeping, and only one guy is actually standing in front of the ball waiting for it to completely come to a stop, it's possible the return team could pick it up and gain 5-10 yards with ease, taking the team out of really bad field position.

I could be wrong, but I believe the refs make a signal when it's been touched, and that is what caused him to go after the ball. It's like a free play after the D-line goes offside.

yes, I think, but I'm not 100% sure of the specifics

Hendry has a LH complement, at present. His name is Jones. He and Murton might combine to make a pretty dynamic offensive LF. The only Pin quote about the lineup, he mentioned Jones, batting 5th. He mentioned Izturis possibly 2nd or 8th, but didn't mention Murton, at all. He said things might change. But until/unless Hendry makes them change, Murton is the Jones complement. And that Jones/Murton platoon would work pretty well at the #5 spot. Pie/Pagan seems to the current guys PinHendry is look at for CF, barring a transaction to be named later. Pin has never seen Pie, so I'm sure he's just going by whatever Hendry has told him. (Baker was also pretty gung-ho on Hill, Choi, Kelton, and Cruz, when all he knew about them was via Hendry-gush. Only after he saw them himself did things change.) If Pie/Pagan are CF, there's a good chance that they'll deserve/need to bat 8th. That will maybe force Pin to consider Izturis for 2nd Hendry obviously likes Izzy. Right or wrong, I assume he's hoping he'll get the best-of-Izturis. Which was: all-star, gold-glove, .288 batting averaege, and .040-.050 IsoD (each of last three years for that IsoD). If Izzy bats .280, and IsoD's at >0.040, you've got a .320+ OBP. If you combined that with a gold-glove SS, that wouldn't look so bat batting 2nd. It would look better batting 8th, but if Pie/Pagan are struggling, I can understand why a manager might prefer to keep the pressure reduced and hide them 8th. I'm not advocating, or defending. I'm just trying to understand. If Hendry wasn't so adament about talking up the need to find a LH OF bat, I'd think Murton/Jones was a good bet at this point. I don't like calling the best of Izturis "all-star" caliber, when in fact Izturis's best season still sucked. Saying a guy was an all-star is just an arbitrary subjective characteristic that doesn't really describe his play. Give Izturis his 2005 stats (when he was an All Star), or his only full season stats (2004, when he had his best seasoon), and he still hurts you offensively. Izturis at his best was like Pierre last year, and Hendry didn't seem to have any problem getting rid of him. I don't like the idea of hiding the young unproductive bat in the 8 hole, I'd much rather they stay in the 7 spot, without the pitcher behind them. Either way, the succubus that is Izturis doesn't have to jump all the way to the 2 hole just because the CF is hitting 8th. If that's where you want Pie/Pagan, then put Izturis 7th, to minimize the number of PA he can waste.

Thankfully I never pretended that luck doesn't play a role. I just don't see how any of this is a strong indication that any of these guys is likely to get better next year.

I think that if anybody is physically in a position where they'd show up on the injury report as anything below probable, they should sit. I think most starters should play most of the game. I'd hate to see Urlacher out there with a cast of backups though.

sports bars take care of this problem. I have yet to find a good bar with Sunday Ticket in NH. That and the fact that I'd feel guilty ditching my family on XMas eve to go drinking and watch football ;) Bring them with.

I've got Chad Johnson and Reggie Wayne going, my opponent has Marvin Harrison. I'm up by 1 point, and I have cincy's defense as well. Should I sit the D, eliminating the risk of a negative point performance, and count on Chad and Reggie to outproduce Marvin on his own? Or do I hope to get a few cheap points out of the Cincy D?

I heard a vague reference to it that said once the kicking team touched the ball, a return player could pick it up and return it without the risk of a turnover. Basically, it was a no risk situation. I'm guessing a special teams player like Worrell would know all these weird special teams related rules.

I'm not even thinking about such a terrible scenario.

Looking at a hardball times article that describes this stat, it doesn't look like anybody but Izturis, Mabry or Nevin came close to falling into the really unlucky category this year. The most notable on the list is Aramis, and he doesn't even fall in the top 200 most unlucky NL players. I'm not sure this is much of a tool to predict guys poised to bounce back from unlucky years.